MARITIME STUDIES

IN THE WAKE

OF THE BYZANTINE

SHIPWRECK AT

YASSIADA, TURKEY

Edited by

Deborah N. Carlson, Justin Leidwanger, and Sarah M. Kampbell

Foreword by George F. Bass

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY PRESS

College Station

-------

SEVENTEEN

The Seventh-Century Byzantine Ship at Yass1ada and Her Final Voyage: Present Thoughts

Frederick H van Doorninck Jr.

Yasst Ada I, published in 1982, presented the "final" study of a seventh-century Byzantine

ship wrecked off the small coastal island of Yass1ada on the narrow strait between Turkey

and the Greek island of Kos and excavated in the early 1960s. The latest copper coin on the

wreck, minted in Constantinople between September 625 and August 626, gives a terminus

post quem for the ship's sinking.1•2

In the study's conclusions, this vessel of modest size, with an overall length of just under

21 m and a capacity of about 60 tons, was described as a small coastal freighter engaged in

carrying a commercial cargo of wine southward along the western coast of Asia Minor.3 How­

ever, since publication of YasstAda I, this view of the ship and her last voyage has undergone

a slow but radical change. My present thoughts on the nature of the ship, her cargo, and her

destination are the subject of this chapter. Although the scenario presented here is at times

speculative, it provides a theoretical framework for a restudy of the cargo amphoras by Peter

van Alfen and me and of their fabrics by Justin Leidwanger that is already increasing in scope

and value.

A Church Ship

An inscription on the captain's steelyard and the overall design and outfitting of the vessel

combine to suggest that the ship from the very beginning had in some way or other served

the Church. ~

The steelyard inscription, "GEORGIOU PRESBYTEROU NAUKLEROU (fEOP­

rIOY ITPEL:~YTEPOY NAYKAEPOY);' or "[belonging to] Georgios Elder Sea­

Captain;' has two possible meanings. It could mean that Georgios was an elder (senior)

sea captain, the interpretation favored in Yasst Ada I, 4 or it could mean that Georgios was

both an elder (priest) in the Church and a sea captain. Since a maritime rank of npeCT~unpo~

vauJCAYjpO~ is otherwise unknown, it is far more likely that Georgios was a priest. The docu­

mented involvement of the Church in seafaring activities in Egypt at this time was doubtless

exceptional but surely not unique within the Empire. Churches and monasteries along the

Nile owned ships that they both manned and maintained,5 while the Church of Alexandria

owned large numbers of ships that sailed not only to Palestine and the Pentapolis of Libya

but also to Sicily, the Adriatic, and perhaps even Britain. 6

With her low, slender lines, the ship's hull was designed for speed at the expense of cargo

capacity. On the final voyage, for example, the hold through much of its length was able to

carry no more than three to four layers of globular amphoras even though they had a body

height of only just over 40 cm.

205

The ship was remarkably well equipped. She carried 11 iron anchors, probably a full

complement: three bowers and a best bower on the bulwarks ready for use and, stacked on

the deck between them, a complete set of four spares plus three heavier sheet anchors to be

used along with a best bower in stormy seas. Some anchors were old, but all appear to have

been in good repair. A tool chest containing perhaps some 40 tools, several bags of nails, and

a large sheet of lead indicated that the ship's carpenter was well prepared to make repairs to

the ship while at sea. There were also pairs of axes, mattocks, and billhooks, as well as a shovel

for use by the crew when foraging for water and firewood on land.

Equipment lockers were all located within an elaborate and well-appointed galley com­

plex set down as low as possible in the stern. A deckhouse, providing the galley with access

and adequate lighting, had a tile roo£ which although totally impractical at sea due to a high

susceptibility to breakage, lent an aura of elegance and relative importance to the vessel.

A large tile firebox with a grill of movable iron bars occupied the port half of the galley

floor. The hearth tiles had been laid in a matrix of clay reinforced by iron bars and prob­

ably enclosed within a wooden box. Preparation and cooking utensils kept near the hearth

included 21 ceramic cooking pots in a variety of shapes and sizes, two cauldrons and a baking

pan of copper, and a mortar and pestle. Food a.nd drink in the galley's main storage locker

included the contents of 16 pantry jars. Both nets and deep-water trolling gear were used to

catch fish; mussels appear to have been part of one of the last shipboard meals.

Serving utensils included several copper or bronze pitchers, a glass bottle, 18 ceramic

pitchers and jugs, a half dozen spouted jars with lids, and four or five settings of a fine table­

ware, each consisting of a red slip ware plate and dish, a glazed bowl, and a one-handled cup.

Some kind oflight, open structure standing on the deck just forward of the galley deckhouse

probably served as a platform for the helmsman to stand on and perhaps also as a shelter

where meals could be eaten and passengers could sleep.

These facilities are, to my knowledge, without parallel among the excavated Mediterra­

nean shipwrecks of antiquity and medieval times and far exceeded the needs of any ordinary

merchant ship of a comparable size. The ship was able to provide food, drink, and accom­

modations to a considerable number of people in a gracious manner in an age when passen­

gers normally provisioned themselves and slept on the open deck. It would appear, then,

that the ship had been designed primarily to transport persons of relatively high rank, in

this case, like the captain, most probably elders of the church, and any associates that might

accompany them.

The Cargo

On the final voyage, the ship's hold was carrying a full load of approximately 900 amphoras.

Just under 800 of these were globular jars belonging to two chronologically successive classes,

Late Roman 2a (LR2a) and Late Roman 2b (LR2b ), the former with and the latter without

a knob-like projection at the base.7 We have remains of perhaps no more than a half dozen

LR2a amphoras.8 They date near the end of the sixth century and unfortunately all have lost

their base knob through breakage during wreck formation. The rest of the cargo amphoras

were cylindrical jars with pinched waists (LRl). The globular jars were stacked three to four

layers deep as permitted by the depth of the hold. What little headroom remained was occu­

pied by the cylindrical amphoras, which were laid on their sides between the necks of the

uppermost level of globular jars.9

206 VAN DooRNINCK ]R.

Only 110 amphoras were raised at the time of the excavation. However, the discovery of

graffiti on some of the cargo amphoras in 1980 led to the recovery of some 560 additional

jars from the site and a much expanded restudy of the amphoras that has continued intermit­

tently to the pres.ent time. 10

The fact that only about 180 amphora stoppers, terracotta disks cut from the walls of dis­

carded amphoras, have been recovered from the site gave rise to the suggestion in Yasst Ada I

that perhaps many amphoras had been empty at the time of the ship's sinking. 11 Since then,

however, a bark stopper has been found in situ in the mouth of an LR2b amphora, and we have

learned that a majority of these jars have very precisely made mouths that would have accom­

modated a standard-sized stopper seated with its outer face flush to the lip. The ceramic

stoppers, on the other hand, come in a variety of sizes that seem to correspond well both in

dimensions and numbers with the various sizes of the generally less carefully made mouths of

the LRl, LR2a, and some of the earlier LR2b amphoras in the hold and at least some of the

storage jars in the galley. Since a majority of the LR2b amphoras recovered after 1980 that

were complete and lined with pitch were found to contain grape pips, it is likely that all of

these amphoras with carefully made mouths had been full and sealed with bark stoppers. 12

The contents of the amphoras are described by Cheryl Ward in Chapter 4 of this volume.

Only a few salient points will be made here. A majority of the LRl, LR2a, and LR2b jars were

carrying wine; more than a dozen or so-we have yet to determine how many-contained

oil. It has been argued that the globular jars belong to a class of amphoras that were designed

to carry olive oil and thus must have contained olive oil. 13 However, as I note in Chapter 3, a

capacity analysis of the globular amphoras now in progress indicates that at least some of the

LR2b globular jars were probably made in a progression of weight capacity sizes of 105, 110,

115, 120, and 125 Byzantine pounds (litrai) of wine, jars of the 110- and 125-pound sizes

sometimes being used to transport 100 and 110 pounds of oil, respectively. Olga Karagior­

gou has suggested that LR2a amphoras, with their larger, funnel-shaped mouths, had been

used exclusively for olive oil, but that the later (LR2b) jars, with their narrower mouths, had

been used for both oil and wine.14 Grape pips and remains of one or two olive pits were found

together in a few of the globular amphoras, but I believe that in these few cases, the olive pits

were very probably intrusive. Analyses of interior surface deposits and underlying fabric in

an effort to determine whether any of the amphoras containing grape pips and/ or lined with

pitch had earlier carried olive oil have not as yet been undertaken. Five of the LR2b jars of a

type now classified as Yassiada Type I, 15 as well as one LRl jar, bear the graffito EAE, carved

after firing, while five additional Yass1ada Type I jars bear the graffito fAY, also carved after

firing. None of these jars has traces of pitch on the interior. I am inclined to believe that all

the graffiti were inscribed on the jars at the time of the ship's last voyage, since they all appear

to have been inscribed by the same hand, including the one on the LRl jar. In my 1989 article

on the reuse of amphoras from the seventh-century Yass1ada wreck and the eleventh-century

Sen;:e Limam wreck, 16 I suggested that EAE was an abbreviation for ~A.aiat (olives) or eA.atov

(olive oil) and that fAY was an abbreviation for r"Auict!i; (sweet) and might have had to do

with sweet wine or olives preserved in sweet wine. However, a 1992 article by Tomasz Derda

makes clear that these two abbreviations appear rather frequently on Late Roman amphoras

and stand for EActtov (olive oil) and ")'AUJCEActLOV (sweet oil, for religious use).17

The globular amphoras, with special attention being given to the YaSSiada Type I jars,

are the subject of Chapter 2 of this volume, written by Peter van Alfen. Thus, only a few

salient points need be made about them here. A majority of the globular amphoras show

FINAL VOYAGE 207

relatively few signs of wear, but even some of these had already seen earlier use. For example,

among the YaSSiada Type I jars, several have pry-damaged rims and several others have rims

with damaged areas that had been carved down. The older globular amphoras, consisting of

several dozen distinct types, are the LR2a and LR2b jars; their more horizontally oriented

handles indicate that they had been made at some time up to possibly several decades before

the ship's sinking. 18 Several dozen different marks of ownership occur on the older globular

amphoras; some jars had had more than one owner. 19 The older jars do not as a group show

substantially greater degrees of wear than the newer jars. This suggests that many may have

served for some time as sedentary storage jars; graffiti on several reveal that they had once

held lentils. 20

Although some kind of commercial activity might well have brought together on one

ship a considerable number of different globular jar types, I believe there are far too many dif­

ferent types involved in the present instance for this to be a credible possibility. However, an

historical event of great moment occurring at the time of the ship's sinking offers a plausible,

noncommercial explanation for this extraordinary amphora assemblage.

The AnnonaMilitaris

Within the past decade, it has become clear that LR2a amphoras and the LR2b amphoras

that succeeded them were in a major way connected with the annona militaris. Karagiorgou

demonstrated this connection in a 1999 conference paper by noting the military function of

sites along the Danubian border and in the Aegean region where LR2a (and LR2b) and LRI

amphoras have been found together in large quantities. 21 They include the Danubian sites

of Justiniana Prima, Viminacium, latrus, Nicopolis ad lstrum, Golemanovo Kale, Toprai­

chioi, lndependenta, Sacidava, and possibly Dinogetia and Sucidava; Emporio on Chios;

and Louloudies near Thessalonica. To these sites can now be added Dichin, a fourth- to

sixth-century Danubian military site where LRI and LR2a amphoras are dominant.22 Con­

versely, LR2a and LR2b amphoras are found in relatively small quantities at nonmilitary

sites. At Sara<;hane in Constantinople, for example, both classes of amphoras are relatively

scarce; LR2a jars first occur in the early sixth century, and in the seventh century, LR2b jars

constitute only 2 to 3 percent of all amphoras.23 An even more striking example is offered

by Halicarnassus (Bodrum), where Maria Berg Briese has been able to identify among the

Byzantine pottery from the Danish excavations only a few body fragments of LR2a and only

three neck fragments from LR2b jars tentatively assigned to a Cypriot workshop.

The production centers of LR2a amphoras were primarily located within an important

olive-producing region in the central Aegean extending from the eastern coast of Greece to

the western coast of Asia Minor.24 The LR2b amphoras, which succeeded the LR2a ampho­

ras at some time during the second half of the sixth century, were apparently produced

within the same region but, as Stella Demesticha has shown, were also made on the island of

Cyprus. 25 It is widely assumed that the quaestura exercitus, a new military office created by

Justinian in 536, was charged with transporting by sea to troops on the Danubian frontier

provisions from the provinces of Caria, the Cyclades, and Cyprus-that is, from the same

general area in which LR2b amphoras were produced.26 It would be interesting to know to

what extent the places of origin of the more than several dozen different types of globular

amphoras present on the ship represent this geographical area. Fabric analyses should even­

tually help give us the answer. Although the Danubian system of defenses did not survive the

208 VAN DOORNINCK ]R.

Slav and Avar invasions, the central Aegean continued to play a major role in Byzantine naval

power, as did Cyprus until its conquest by the Arabs in 654.27

Florin Curta has presented in considerable detail textual and archaeological evidence sug­

gesting that the Church played an important part in the actual distribution of the annona

militaris on the Danubian border, as part of the role it played in the administration of the

fortified setdements.28 I am not aware of any direct evidence that the Church's participation

extended to the gathering and transport of these provisions, other than, as we will see, the evi­

dence from Samos. However, it seems likely that this would have been the case in view of the

Church's considerable long-term involvement in maritime commerce and charitable distribu­

tions, particularly after 622, when the struggle against Persia became viewed as a holy war.29

Samos and the Annona Militaris

The German excavators of the Hellenistic gymnasium in the port city ofSamos on the island

of Samos have proposed that a monastery complex built in the second half of the sixth cen­

tury within the ruins of Roman baths that had supplanted the gymnasium were a part of

the church estates of the bishop of Ephesos. According to their theory, the monastery had

served as an important administrative center for the annona militaris. 30 Extensive damage to

the complex (and other buildings in the city) in the second decade of the seventh century

appears to have been due solely to a major earthquake in 614 that damaged Ephesos as well.31

The complex was repaired probably still within the first quarter of the seventh century32 and

continued in use until its final destruction by the Arabs ca. 670.

The monastery complex was well situated and equipped to perform the function attrib­

uted to it. It was located near the Aegean shore and next to the Sacred Way leading to the

Sanctuary of Hera, then part of the monastery estates.33 On the shore to the east was a cas­

trum overlooking the city's large, well-protected harbor, which was serving around 660 as

the headquarters of the fleet of the Carabisians ("shipmen"),34 possibly a successor to the

Aegean fleet of the quaestura exercitus. 35 To the north of the complex, the terrain rose steeply

to the city's acropolis. The still-maintained city walls encompassed the harbor, acropolis, and

monastery complex, which had at its center a strongly built, multistoried tower where the

excavators presume the administrative headquarters were located.36

Arranged around the tower were a basilica and various rooms and corridors devoted to

the processing of olives, grapes, and grain and to storage. These facilities included a wine

press, an olive press, and two deposits of amphora remnants belonging, in one case, to about

120 LRl jars and, in the other case, to more than 20 small (27-L capacity) LR2 (LR2b) jars.37

For reasons that remain unclear, the excavators were uncertain as to what the actual contents

of the two groups of jars had been, other than that wine and olive oil were likely involved. The

size and simplicity of the wine and olive presses indicate that they were probably designed to

process only the produce of the monastery's own estates. Although the monastery might very

well have served as an important administrative center for the annona militaris, there is no

evidence to suggest that it was at the same time some kind oflarge-scale production facility

that processed the surplus produce of multiple estates.

On the steep slopes directly north of the monastery complex, and also within the city

walls, lays the entrance of the 1,036-meter-long Eupalinos tunnel, an aqueduct beneath a ser­

vice passage measuring 1.8 x 1.8 min section built under Mount Kastro in the sixth century

BCE. Excavation of the tunnel and two associated cisterns yielded five to six tons of broken

FINAL VOYAGE 209

pottery belonging to various types of food storage jars, including LRl and LR2 (LR2b)

amphoras.38 The latter jars, which had contained olive oil, were particularly numerous; rem­

nants of at least 500 to 600 were recovered.39 Coin finds led the excavators to conclude that

the tunnel had been used as a place of refuge at the time of the Persian presence in western

Asia Minor ( 626) and then later between 668 and 678, when Samos may have been briefly

occupied by the Arabs.40 In view of the lack of any compelling evidence that Samos was

actually attacked by the Persians and the presence of so many storage jars in the tunnel and

cisterns, it seems more likely that the tunnel had served in a time of perceived danger as a

secure storage facility for substantial quantities of foodstuffs, presumably destined for the

annona militaris. A distance from the tunnel entrance of 500 m to the monastery complex

and of 600 m to the shore of the Aegean would have made the tunnel less than ideal yet suit­

able enough to serve such a function.

A relatively high incidence of parallels between the ceramic finds from the seventh­

century Yass1ada ship and contemporaneous ceramic finds associated with the monastery

complex, Eupalinos tunnel, and Sanctuary of Hera led the German excavators to propose a

connection between the ship and the Samos-based annona militaris. 41 Twelve of 24 lamps

recovered from the ship are of an Asia Minor type closely associated with the region around

Ephesos;42 two of them have good parallels in a lamp from the monastery complex and

another from the nearby Hera Sanctuary.43 Among the coarseware from the ship, there were

about a dozen vessels with relatively good parallels from Samos; three pitchers are similar to

six pitchers from the Eupalinos tunnel and cisterns,44 two pitchers to two pitchers from the

Hera Sanctuary,45 four spouted jars to a jar from the Eupalinos tunnel and a jar from the Hera

Sanctuary,46 and two cooking pots to several pots from the Eupalinos tunnel and a pot from

Misokampos, a site also in southeastern Samos.47

It is, however, the ship's LR2b amphoras that constitute by far the most compelling link

to Samos. Because our study of them is still far from complete, we must limit comparisons

here to the Yass1ada Type I amphoras. Five of six published, recognizable examples of this

type of amphora from Samos are found in the cisterns at the Eupalinos tunnel.48 It would

appear that none of them differs in any significant way from the Yassiada jars of this type,

while three of them share with some of the Yass1ada jars the peculiarity of having one handle

that turns down toward the shoulder more abruptly than does the other.49 A sixth jar, seem­

ingly identical in form, dimensions, and decorative details to some of the Yass1ada Type I jars

from the wreck, was recovered from a rubbish pit associated with the repairs made to the

monastery complex afi:er the earthquake of 614.50 This raises the possibility that the repairs

were not completed until the earlier part of the 620s, when all of the Yass1ada Type I jars may

have been made. The only other example of a Yass1ada Type I amphora that I have encoun­

tered is on display in the Arslan Eyce Museum (Inv. No. 181) in Ta§UCU near Silifke on the

coast of Cilicia. The remarkably close and almost exclusive connection that the Yass1ada

Type I amphoras have with Samos suggests a strong possibility that amphoras of this type

were made either on the island or close by. Fabric analysis should eventually help resolve the

matter.

The YaSSlada Type I amphoras belonged to a capacity system for wine and oil described

by me in Chapter 3 of this volume. We have some reason to believe that the system may not

have been long in use before the mid-620s, although this is yet to be proven. Perhaps estab­

lishment of a more efficient capacity system and the rebuilding of the monastery complex

210 VAN DooRNINCK ]R.

were a part of Heraclius's preparations in the early 620s to regain the offensive in the war

against Persia. It seems possible that the globular jars of the new capacity system were made

under state supervision in workshops like those that produced arms and clothing for the

military or those that appear to have mass-produced standardized forms of red slip ware on

a production li~e basis.51

The War Against Persia

If our ship was in fact part of a Beet of ships based at Samos serving the annona, what trans­

port activities might it have been engaged in during those final days? In endeavoring to

answer this question, I have relied heavily on the recent writings ofJames Howard-Johnston

and Walter Kaegi, as they pertain to the military situation and events then occurring,52

and I have found Constantine Zuckerman's solution to the vexing problem regarding the

chronology of these events to be the most persuasive.53 Since the latest copper coin from

the wreck was minted in Constantinople at some time between September 625 and August

626, it is conceivable that our ship's last voyage occurred as early as the final month or so of

625. The absence of any other coins minted at that time or later suggests that the last voyage

probably occurred before or soon after a protracted war against the Persians came to an end

in 629.

The Persians had invaded the easternmost provinces of the Byzantine Empire in 603 in

the wake of the usurpation of the Byzantine throne by Phocas a year earlier. By 611, they

had penetrated as far west as Syria and Cappadocia. Phocas had been overthrown in 610 by

Heraclius, whose early counter efforts against the Persians ended in a decisive Persian victory

at Antioch in 613.Jerusalem fell the following year, and in 615-16, Persian troops marched

across Asia Minor and momentarily stood at the Bosphorus. By 618-19, the Persians were

in control of all the easternmost provinces from Armenia to Egypt. These same years saw a

major movement of the Avars and Slavs southward, including into the hinterland of Con­

stantinople itself In 622-23, Heraclius's preoccupation with the Avar threat again enabled

the Persians to push westward in Asia Minor to Ankara and to launch a naval attack against

Rhodes.

It was at this point-and I now follow the chronology of events proposed by Zucker­

man-that Heraclius launched a counteroffensive that was eventually to result in a crush­

ing military and political defeat of the Persians. Taking advantage of the Persian military's

engagement in western Asia Minor, Heraclius left Constantinople in March 624, assumed

command of an army assembled at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and marched toward the heart

of the Persian empire. By fall, he had reached Takht-i-Suleiman in the Azerbaijan region of

present-day Iran, but when threatened with encirclement by three pursuing Persian armies,

he retreated into Armenia. After a series of evasive movements and indecisive battles lasting

through the winter months into the spring, Heraclius managed to withdraw his troops from

danger by taking a roundabout route southward across the Taurus Mountains, westward

through northern Syria and Cilicia, northward to Caesarea, and beyond to Sebasteia (mod­

ern Sivas) and Trebizond, where he went into winter quarters.

Early in 626, the Persian king Chosroes II sent a large army under the command of

Shahrbaraz west to support the Avars in an impending assault on Constantinople and a sec­

ond large army under the command of Shahin against Heraclius. Heraclius sent part of his

FINAL VOYAGE 211

army to aid in the defense of Constantinople, another part to engage Shahin, and stood fast

with the rest of his forces. The defeat of Shahin's forces, probably in July,54 left Heraclius in

control of much of Asia Minor and free to increase and resupply his forces.

Meanwhile, Constantinople was ably defended by a garrison of 12,000 men and a fleet

of 70 or more warships. Byzantine naval supremacy kept open supply lines to a city cut off

from the produce of its own hinterland and prevented Shahrbaraz's forces within sight of

the city on the Asian shore at Chalcedon from assisting the Avars and their Slav allies, who

on July 29, 626 launched a massive assault on the city that was ended 10 days later by the

destruction of a Slav fleet attempting to storm the sea walls. 55 Shahrbaraz withdrew from

Chalcedon to Cilicia and Syria, probably only days after the end of the siege of the city, and

assumed a nonaggressive posture.56

The following spring, Heraclius moved his army along the Black Sea coast to the Pon­

tic port of Phasis (modern Georgia) and then eastward into Lazica and assisted the Kok

Turks in the siege and capture ofTiflis. He then turned southward toward Mesopotamia and

on December 12, 627 won a major victory at Nineveh in a battle so decisive that by mid­

February the Persians had overthrown and executed their king. In April of 628, Heraclius

withdrew his expeditionary army from Persia aud returned to Constantinople. By July the

following year, a peace agreement had been reached.

The Final Voyage

It is possible that our ship had participated in the supplying of Constantinople at some time

shortly before her final voyage. Nine of the 24 lamps recovered from the wreck have their best

parallels in lamps from Constantinople and include 4 of the 8 lamps on board with charred

nozzles, a certain evidence of use. 57 Perhaps the copper coin of most recent date, minted at

Constantinople, was acquired within the city itself

Our ship set sail on what was to be her final voyage fully laden with wine and olive oil,

destined, I have argued, for Heraclius's army in the East. She also carried some jars containing

sweet oil for liturgical purposes, particularly essential for a Byzantine army engaged in a holy

war.58 I think it likely that she would have been part of a convoy and may have been stationed

on the convoy's shoreward flank because of her relatively high mobility and light load. In any

case, she came too close to the small coastal island ofYass1ada, struck its treacherous reef, and

sank to the south of the reef while attempting to reach the island.

Heraclius, a careful long-range planner who left as little to chance as possible, must have

relied to some significant extent on sea transport for the provisioning of an army that is esti­

mated to have consisted of at least some 20,000 men.59 To be sure, the primary source of pro­

visions for men and horses would have been foraging off the countryside. For example, when

Heraclius withdrew from Armenia in 625, the direct road westward to Cappadocia through

Taranta (modern Darende) was not taken because although it "was superior, it lacked every

kind of food supply;' while the road to Syria "provided a plentiful abundance of food."60 Yet

depending entirely on foraging was courting disaster, as one of the Persian commanders pur­

suing Heraclius just prior to the Battle of Nineveh learned at great cost to his animals.61 It is

instructive that Heraclius chose Trebizond, a major Black Sea port, as his base of operations

while making preparations in 626 for his final attack and then, early in 627, transported part

of his forces by ship to the port of Phasis. 62 It has been suggested that Heraclius may also

212 VAN DOORNINCK ]R.

have resupplied his army by sea while passing through Cilicia on his retreat from Armenia

in 625.63

I believe the most plausible date for the sinking of the seventh-century YaSSiada ship

would have beei; during a brief time late in the summer of 626. At the end of 625, it became

possible for Heraclius to be resupplied with provisions from the Aegean by ships sailing

north to the Black Sea and then east to Trebizond, but this route would soon have been seri­

ously compromised at the very least by the presence of Shahrbaraz's forces on the east shores

facing the Avars on the west shores of the narrow Bosphorus. However, Shahin's defeat in

July may have made it possible to ship provisions from the Aegean eastward to the Cilician

coast and then north through the Cilician Gates to Trebizond. One imagines that wine and

oil may have been transferred to more easily transported skins for the land journey northward

and that the emptied amphoras would have been retained for recycling. I have already noted

that some of the very recently made LR2b jars from the Yass1ada wreck give evidence that

they had already been reused. The presence of some very old jars among the globular ampho­

ras carried by our ship may be an indication of a shortfall of available jars, conceivably due

to a need to prepare a shipment within a brief window of opportunity. The YaSSiada Type I

amphora on display in the Arslan Eyce Museum was recovered from the sea off the Cilician

coast, probably by a fishing trawler working near Ta§Ucu.64 The amphora is possibly from a

wrecked ship engaged in the very same supply operation. The Black Sea route would have

been resumed when Shahrbaraz withdrew his army to Cilicia and Syria.

Another plausible context for our ship's sinking would have been between the conclusion

of peace in July 629 and the restoration of the Cross to Jerusalem by Heraclius in March

630, a period during which Byzantine troops reoccupied Syria and Palestine. In this case, the

ship's destination would have been the Levan tine coast, but the makeshift nature of the cargo

amphoras would remain unexplained.

What survives of the seventh-century YaSSiada ship and her cargo now resides at the Bod­

rum Museum of Underwater Archaeology in Turkey. These remnants are, I believe, precious

relics of what Howard-Johnston calls "the last great war of antiquitY:'65

NOTES

1. I am grateful to Michael McCormick for his very valuable comments on this paper.

2. Of the 54 copper coins recovered from the wreck, 48 are datable. Of these, all but two were

minted during the reign of Heraclius and, with the exception of the latest coin, in the first eight years of

his reign (610-18):]. M. Fagerlie, "The Coins:' in YassiAda, Volume I: A Seventh-Century Byzantine

Shipwreck, ed. G. F. Bass and F. H. van DoorninckJr., p. 145.

3. G. F. Bass, "Conclusions;' in Yassi Ada, Volume l:'A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, ed.

G. F. Bass and F. H. van DoorninckJr., p. 318.

4. Ibid., p. 314.

5. G. R. Monks, "The Church of Alexandria and the City's Economic Life in the Sixth CenturY:'

Speculum 28 (1953): 355 and n. 46.

6. Ibid., p. 356.

7. For the LR2a and LR2b classification, see 0. Karagiorgou, "Mapping Trade by the Amphora:' in

Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries: The Archaeology of Local Regional and International Exchange.

Papers of the Thirty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. John's College, University of

Oxford, March 2004, ed. M. M. Mango, pp. 41-43, fig. 4.2.

8. F. H. van Doorninck Jr., "The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century YaSSI Ada and the 11th

Century Sen;e Limam Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport

Jars:' in Recherches sur la ceramique byzantine, ed. V. Deroche andJ.-M. Spieser, p. 249, fig. 1.1.

FINAL VOYAGE 213

9. Since the ship listed to port on the seabed, most of the cylindrical jars ended up along the port side of the wreck.

10. G. F. Bass, "The Pottery;' in YasszAda, Volume I: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, ed. G. F. Bass and F. H. van DoorninckJr., p. 161. An early report on the restudy of the globular amphoras

appears in van DoorninckJr., "The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassr Ada and the 11th Cen­

tury Srn;e Limam Shipwrecks;' pp. 247-57. A restudy of the LR1 amphoras was published just over a decade ago: P. G. van Alfen, "New Light on the 7th-C. Yassr Ada Shipwreck: Capacities and Standard Sizes ofLRA1Amphoras,"]RA9 (1996): 189-213.

11. Bass, "The Pottery;' p. 161, where it is stated that about 165 stoppers were recovered from the

wreck. However, about 15 overlooked stoppers have more recently been found in storage boxes.

12. One might well expect that more than only one bark stopper would have survived in this case. However, the amphoras on the eleventh-century Byzantine ship at Ser<;e Limam are instructive in

this regard. Possibly as many as 67 amphoras on the ship when it sank were sealed by standard-sized stoppers with a maximum diameter of 7 lepta ( 6.825 cm); 59 of the stoppers had been seated with

their outer face flush to the lip of the amphora's mouth, while eight of them were well recessed. Only between two and four of these stoppers survived. On the other hand, although only 24 amphoras

were sealed by standard-sized stoppers with a maximum diameter of 6 lepta (5.85 cm), 19 of these

stoppers were well recessed and at least five stoppers of this size survived. I suspect that at least most of the surviving stoppers had been recessed and well protected from teredo worms by a thick layer of

pitch, while flush-seated stoppers, such as those sealipg the mouths of the LR2b jars at Yassrada, were relatively unprotected and perished.

13. W. Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus zwei benachbarten Zisternen;' in Samos

20: Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos. Die Funde, ed. U. Jantzen, p. 210. 14. 0. Karagiorgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?"

in Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, ed. S. Kingsley and

M. Decker, p. 149.

15. There are two subtypes within this type: some 130 have handles that are angular in profile (Bass, "The Pottery;' p. 158, fig. 8-4, middle row, lefi: and right, and p. 159, fig. 8-5, CA 13) and some 30 have handles that are more bow-like in profile (Bass, "The Pottery;' p. 159, fig. 8-5, CA 17).

16. Supra. n. 6.

17. T. Derda, "Inscriptions with the Formula 8rni! xapt~ 1ci\poo~ on Late Roman Amphorae;'

Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 94 (1992): 138, n. 17, and 140, n. 29. 18. Several of these earlier types are illustrated by van DoorninckJr., "The Cargo Amphoras on

the 7th Century Yassr Ada and the 11th Century Ser<;e Limam Shipwrecks;' p. 249, figs. 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.13.

19. Ibid., p. 251, figs. 2.1-2.4, 2.14. 20. Ibid., fig. 2.5.

21. Karagiorgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?" pp. 132-45.

22. V. G. Swan, "Dichin (Bulgaria) and the Supply of Amphorae to the Lower Danube in the Late Roman-Early Byzantine Period;' in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts

of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, ed.]. Eiring and]. Lund, p. 372.

23. Karagiorgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?" p. 132;

]. W. Hayes, Excavations at Sararhane in Istanbul ii: The Pottery, p. 66, type 9 (LR2a) and p. 71, type 29 (LR2b).

24. A. Opai~, "The Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae in the Province of Scythia;' in Transport

Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish

Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2002, ed.]. Eiring and]. Lund, p. 296.

25. S. Demesticha, "Some Thoughts on the Production and Presence of the Late Roman Amphora 13 on Cyprus;' in Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from Late Hellenistic Period to Late

Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence, ed. M. Briese Berg and L. E. Vaag, pp. 169-78.

26.]. F. Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565-1204, p. 68, where men-

214 VAN DOORNINCK ]R.

tion of Cyprus is omitted; F. Curra, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower

Danube Region, c. 500-700, pp. 76-77, 185. 27.]. F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, p. 217. 28. Curra, The Making of the Slavs, p. 77, for the textual evidence, and pp. 155-69, where an

archaeological survey of excavated sites reveals a reoccurring pattern of church dominance in location and structure.

29.]. Howard-Johnston, "Heraclius' Persian Campaigns and the Revival of the East Roman Em­pire, 622-630;' Tf'tzr in History 6.1 (1999): 39-40.

30. W. Martini and C. Steckner, Samos 17: Das Gymnasium vom Samos. Das fruhbyzantinische

Klostergut, pp. 203-207. 31. There is no evidence that Samos was ever subjected to Persian attack: Howard-Johnston, "Her­

aclius' Persian Campaigns and the Revival of the East Roman Empire, 622-630;' p. 33. 32. E. Gerousi, "Early Christian Pottery from the Area of'Episkopeion' on Samos:' Archaiologikon

Deltion 47 /48 (1992-93): 266. 33. For a sketch map of the city of Samos at that time, see Martini and Steckner, Samos 17: Das

Gymnasium vom Samos. Das fruhbyzantinische Klostergut, p. xiv, fig. 1. 34. W. Treadgold, Byzantium and Its Army 284-1081, p. 73. 35. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, p. 217, n. 33,

but see C. Zuckerman, "Learning from the Enemy and More: Studies in 'Dark Centuries' Byzantium;' Millennium: jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschicte des ersten jahrtausends 2 (2005): 112, where even an indirect derivation of the fleet of the Carabisians from the quaestura exercitus is regarded as highly unlikely. My thanks to Michael McCormick for bringing this article to my attention.

36. Martini and Steckner, Samos 17: Das Gymnasium vom Samos. Das fruhbyzantinische Kloster­

gut, p. 191. 37. The processing, storage facilities, and amphoras are described in Ibid., pp. 149-61 and in a

preliminary report: C. Steckner, "Les amphores LR 1 and LR 2 en relation avec le pressior du complexe ecclesiastique des thermes de Samos;' in Recherches sur la ceramique byzantine, ed. V. Deroche and

J.-M. Spieser, pp. 57-71. 38. For the final report on the ceramic finds, see Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus

zwei benachbarten Zisternen;' pp. 198-345. For a convenient summary of the storage jar finds, see Karagiorgou, "LR2: a Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?" p. 141.

39. W. Hautumm, Studien zuAmphoren der spdtromischen und byzantinischen Zeit, p. 21. 40. U. Jantzen et al., "Samos 1973: Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos;' Archaologischer Anzeiger 90

(1975): 35. 41. Martini and Steckner, Samos 17: Das Gymnasium vom Samos. Das fruhbyzantinische Kloster­

gut, pp. 156, 193, 204; Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus zwei benachbarten Zisternen," p.211. ~

42. K. D. Vitelli, "The Lamps;' in Yassz Ada, Volume I: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck,

ed. G. F. Bass and F. H. van DoorninckJr., pp. 190-96, L 1-Ll 2. 43. Compare L 1 and L 2 with Martini and Steckner, Samos 17: Das Gymnasium vom Samos.

Das fruhbyzantinische Klostergut, p. 122, fig. 36, 2.2 and A. M. Schneider, "Samos in friihchristlicher und byzantinischer Zeit," Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 54 (1929): 134, figs. 30.3 (lower half) and 30.4.

44. Compare P 14, P 16, and P 18 in Bass, "The Pottery;' pp. 168-70, figs. 8-10, 8-11, with Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus zwei benachbarten Zisternen;' 1407 -409, and 1412, pp. 228-29, plates 49-50, and 1770 and 1772, pp. 302-303, plate 78.

45. Compare P 24 and P 29 in Bass, "The Pottery:' pp. 170-72, 174, figs. 8-12, 8-14, with, respec­tively, H.P. Isler, "Heraion von Samos: Eine friihbyzantinische Zisterne;' Mitteilungen des deutschen

archaologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 84 (1969): K3810 and K3811, p. 207, plates 89.2, 90.1.

46. Compare P 35-P 38 in Bass, "The Pottery;' pp. 173-75, figs. 8-13, 8-14, with Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus zwei benachbarten Zisternen;' 1509, p. 245, plate 57, and Isler, "Heraion von Samos: Eine friihbyzantinische Zisterne;' K3809, p. 207, plate 89.1, 89.3.

FINAL VOYAGE 215

47. Compare P 60 and P 47 in Bass, "The Pottery;' pp. 176-80, figs. 8-15, 8-16, 8-17, with, respectively, Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus zwei benachbarten Zisternen;' 1470-72 and 1477, pp. 240-41, plate 54, and 1475, p. 241, plate 54 and Schneider, "Samas in fruhchristlicher und byzantinischer Zeit;' p. 128, n. 10, fig. 21.2.

48. Hautumm, "Keramik aus dem Tunnel sowie aus zwei benachbarten Zisternen;' oil amphoras

1734-36, 1739, 1741, and 1742, pp. 294-96, plates 74-76, 101. 49. Amphoras 1736, 1739, and 1742. 50. Gerousi, "Early Christian Pottery from the Area of'Episkopeion' on Samos;' pp. 253-54, fig. 2. 51. For the military workshops, see Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transforma­

tion of the Culture, pp. 238-44; for the standardized, mass production of red slip ware, see K. Dark, Byzantine Pottery, pp. 80-81.

52.]. Howard-Johnston, East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the End of Antiquity; W. E. Kaegi, Her-

aclius. Emperor of Byzantium.

53. C. Zuckerman, "Heraclius in 625;' Revue des Etudes Byzantines 60 (2002): 189-97. 54. Kaegi, Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium, p. 132. 55. For a recent account of the Avar siege·of Constantinople, see]. Howard-Johnston, "The Siege

of Constantinople in 626;' in Constantinople and Its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-Seventh

Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, ed. C. Mango and G. Dagron, pp. 131-42. 56. Kaegi, Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium, p. 151; Howard-Johnston, "Heraclius' Persian Cam-

paigns and the Revival of the East Roman Empire, 62,.2-630;' pp. 21-22. 57. Vitelli, "The Lamps;' pp. 196-201, L 13-L 21. 58. Howard-Johnston, "Heraclius' Persian Campaigns and the Revival of the East Roman Empire,

622-630;' pp. 39-40. 59. Kaegi, Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium, p. 125, n. 10. 60. Theophanes, Chronicles ofTheophanes Confessor, p. 444. 61. Kaegi, Heraclius. Emperor of Byzantium, p. 15 9. 62. Ibid., p. 142. 63. The historian George Rawlinson noted (G. Rawlinson, The Seventh Great Monarchy: or the

History, Geography, and Antiquities of the Sassanian or New Persian Empire, p. 515) that the march through Cilicia brought Heraclius "once more in his own territory, with the sea close at hand, ready to bring him supplies or afford him a safe retreat .... "

64. E-mail communication in October 2008 from Tuba Ekmek<;i, who had just received this infor­mation in a telephone conversation with Ahmet Kaan ~enol, the cataloger of the amphora collection in the Arslan Eyce Museum.

65. See]. Howard-Johnston, "Al-Tabari on the Last Great War of Antiquity," in East Rome, Sasa­

nian Persia and the End of Antiquity, J. Howard-Johnston, no. VI.

216 VAN DOORNINCK JR.